KAMTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for a direction to the respondent authority concern to pay the petitioner all the consequential benefits from the date of his promotion.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that as per Govt. Circular No. 6856 dated 6.10.83 issued by the Secretary, Irrigation Department it is very clear that 20% of vacancy falling in grade III posts was to be filled up from Grade -IV employees on the basis of seniority. It was further mentioned in the said circular that persons appointed in Class -IV prior to 18.10.78 would be given promotion to Class -III posts according to their seniority. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Class -IV employee in the year 1973. However, in a promotion list published vide Memo No. 21 dated 7.1.83 surprisingly the persons who were juniors to the petitioner and whose name appeared below the name of the petitioner in the gradation list were given promotion to Class -III post. According to the petitioner, the employees at SI. Nos. 200, 201 and 216 in the gradation list were promoted whereas, the case of the petitioner, who is above in the gradation list, was not considered and he was not given promotion. Therefore, he submitted representation before the authority concerned. The representation was allowed and thereby he was granted promotion since and then petitioner was granted promotions notionally w.e.f. 12.7.1990 but the payment with regard to difference of salary of the intervening period has not been granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing the present writ petition. 2010(3) JLJR 185], this court has considered all the previous judgments rendered on this point and after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case involved in the matter, passed an order directing the respondent authorities to grant the retrospective promotion and to compute all financial benefits. pre and post retirement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the provision contained in Rule 58(A) and (B) of the Bihar Service Code read with Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules have been considered by the Court and it was held that there is no applicability of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code r/w Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present case is also squarely covered by the abovereferr 3d Judgment and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefit with retrospective effect. 1996(7) SCC 533 and submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two judgments, the petitioner is not entitled to get the monetary benefit from the intervening period as the promotion was granted to the petitioner notionally. It is also submitted that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is submitted that each case is required to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances involved therein. Learned counsel for the State tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgments on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2003(2) PLJR 44 read as under: -